Jump to content

AlbertH

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    53
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About AlbertH

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. If you make a fuss and insist the money is paid to you they may agree to save any hassle. If this redress was awarded through the FOS though, I'm certain they would have told the business to clear the debt they sold before any redress gets paid to you. They have a different approach on Payday loans compared to PPI, it's about putting you in the position you would be in if you didn't take any loans out. Lots of examples on the decision database of them deciding the lender should buy back the account or pay redress to the third party. I don't agree with it but it is the approach they take.
  2. Casheuronet will try to set off any refunds against the accounts they sold to Lantern. I've been through it and the Ombudsman made a decision for them to either buy the account back, or pay the refund to the third party. So to avoid that you should negotiate a reduced settlement with lantern so there's no debt to set off. That's a standard reply from QQ too, I think they just use a template and input your income and loan dates etc.
  3. Accept it it's a fair offer. When the Ombudsman upholds irresponsible lending complaints they ask the lender to refund/remove interest and charges, that's what Oakam have done.
  4. That's a fair offer from Mr Lender. They're correct, the FOS will only ask Mr Lender to remove the interest and charges if they uphold your complaint, you still have to pay back the original amount borrowed. So Mr Lender has already offered to do what the FOS would tell them to do if they uphold your complaint.
  5. Nextcredit was right cowboy outfit in 2013. It was part of toothfairy. They never did checks and said they would lend to anyone over 18 that had a job. In their contracts they had charges for withdrawing from the agreement within 14 days which I have never seen before and I doubt is legal. Online loan shark sums them up.
  6. I'd take it to the FOS and see what they say, worse case is they say their offer is fair so nothing ventured nothing gained. Personally I think you have a realistic chance of getting some money back, lending to you 18 months running on what is supposed to be short term loans isn't very responsible from them. No defaults on credit report could be meaningless, how many accounts have you opened during this period? you've opened 18 with cashasap alone, if you have been borrowing from somewhere else that will be on there too and it suddenly paints a lot worse picture than a single default.
  7. What a load of crap from the adjudicator who either doesn't know what he's doing or is trying to hide from something. I requested a copy of my case file for 5 complaints they were looking at (3 already settled) and received everything for the 5 individual cases the same day, loads of internal screenshots from their systems but even if it were in the remotest bit business sensitive they could have cut the header off and left the text notes. I made this request to the team leader of the payday loans team though because I'd already made a complaint about the adjudicator by that stage and was dealing with the team leader. You could ask the adjudicator for their team leaders contact details and ask her for the case file. What about the emails between the adjudicator and Mr L, how can that be business sensitive? And the application form! anyone could go to their site and view that. Even if documents are from an internal system they could convert them to alternative format or cut off the header like I've said. Of course Mr L would say they don't want to share the information if they were asked because the least you know the better for them, but the adjudicator shouldn't have even asked them because it's not for the business to decided what can be shared. This is from FOS site on FAQ Businesses; http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/businesses/answers/handle_cases_a5.html If you believe that some information should be kept confidential between you and us, you should mark that information clearly and tell us why you think we should not pass it to the consumer. We will consider your request - but we may not agree to it, unless there is a strong case for confidentiality, such as security reasons
  8. Hi Katie. The fact that the lender asked for some outgoings is a very big deal to the fos, whether they were correct or not is practically irrelevant to them. Note that the fos haven't commented on whether they think the loans were affordable, they only consider that if they decide the lender didn't do enough checks. I think there's something in the fsa handbook on affordability which says lenders should do at least 2 of several things which includes asking for outgoings/budget and performing a credit check. There's a discrepancy in getting complaints uphold between loans in the last 2 years or so when almost every lender asks for outgoings and loans before then when almost no lender asked for that. IMO you should look for something else, ask the adjudicator for the case file and they will send you all the evidence in the case, including the emails MR L has sent them, the credit checks they sent in and any other documents they sent which could show something. If for example they had declined a loan application from you then approved you shortly after they will need to explain what had changed, or if you ever told them anything about your situation and it's in their contact notes. You will also know when/if the adjudicator is exaggerating when they refer to the information Mr L has provided them and what it shows.
  9. I successfully claimed against the money shop for irresponsible lending but this was only because I proved that I told them i was in financial difficulties before they continued to lend to me without doing additional checks. I think it's a bit harder to claim against the money shop than it is online lenders, because they would have asked you for a wage slip and intermmitently asked you to fill out a simple expenses form. In the view of the fos this would have been enough. I've had cases where the fos have advocated that lenders shouldn't perform credit checks for these types of loans because the data is not real time and circumstances could change, in one case I had lots of defaults (payday loans) and around £20k in due debt and they used this reasoning to dismiss the credit check that the lender performed. But if you had lots of continuous loans or rollovers with the money shop the fos may think this should have alerted the money shop that the loans were unaffordable and you may get them on that.
  10. I have seen some fos decisions where they write off the outstanding debt but they usually say you have to pay back what you borrowed, so if you borrowed £200 and paid back £100 you would still owe them £100. Unless they sold the debt on. Their response answers your complaint and although they have not answered it like you would have wanted or addressed all the points, there's no indication that they have anything further to add or will be sending a further response. So you could go to fos now, if you ask them if it's their final response I think you will experience their slow delays and you will be in an almost identical position in 8 weeks time. The person from Quickquid that deals with the fos complaints and the fos used to be an adjudicator at the fos untill very recently (probably the same at other lenders), so they probably know all the delaying tricks and what to say to the adjudicators (who they may have worked alongside), so they have an advantage to start with but if they have done wrong it shouldn't matter.
  11. Hi. This is a very messy case tbh that got closed/settled twice before being reopened again. Ultimately though I had a few loans with them that were unaffordable and were rolled over 4/5 times each. The latest loan was for £750 with a duration of only 14 days and my income which I told them of was only £1150 month. I will try to give a basic outline of what happened below, if there's anything specific you want to know just ask. I complained to quickquick saying the loans were unaffordable and I wanted a refund of interest and charges. They sent back a standard looking reply not uphelding the complaint. I went to the fos online site and filled out the complaint there. Several weeks later I saw that an adjudicator had tried to contact me but I hadn't replied within 2 weeks, they had accepted an offer of £150 from quickquid to settle the complaint. Turns out Quickquid refused to do this because I hadn't accepted it and provided my bank details. Reopened complaint by filling in another form on fos online site. QQ made another offer of £1,620 which I rejected About a month later the adjudicator was still telling me she was waiting for QQ to send her the application form so she could make a view of the complaint. Sick of the delays and unsure what view the adjudicator would take I told her I would accept the offer, which I recieved a few days later. I made a service complaint to her team leader about accepting the £150 offer for me and the delays from QQ sending information, amounting to many months when I was initially only given 2 weeks to respond before the case was closed. Team leader backed the adjudicator, I argued a few points and the team leader then sent me a dated history of events on this complaint. From this I found that the day before I accepted the offer of £1,620 the adjudicator had made a view and told QQ to refund interest and charges which would have come to over double the offer I accepted. Not happy I asked for a senior manager to look at my service complaint . After a few weeks I was contacted by senior manager who apologised for accepting the £150 offer on my behalf and for not keeping me informed, she reccommended that they reopen the complaint and an ombudsman look at it and contact me, which I agreed. The ombudsman contacted me and said he had asked QQ to consider the previous adjudicators reccommendation of the refund of interest and charges. They agreed but then said I had an outstanding debt with them, the ombudsman seemed to be leaning towards their position at first but after sending all the information on this thread he agreed they could only set off if they could prove they owned or had an interest in the debt, which he didn't think they could. He then passed it to another ombudsman for a final decision in which it was upheld.
  12. I recieved a final decision a few weeks ago and was hearing nothing via the normal routes. I previously asked for all the evidence from the fos on my complaints, from this I had the direct email, landline and mobile that the person dealing with the fos had disclosed to the adjudicator. After sending payment demands in caps and full of warnings (similar to ones I recieved) and informing them I would keep contacting them through email, telephone and mobile untill I recieved the money I was owed, it was sorted very quickly.
  13. In the end QQ claimed they had bought the debt back but they couldn't show proof that they had, so the ombudsman ruled that they couldn't set off the refund.
  14. Thanks for that information it is very usefull. I will include it if they continue to insist on paying the third party.
  15. Thanks CitizenB. I hope you're correct, do you know anything that could back it up in the FSA handbook or previous decisions etc.
×
×
  • Create New...